Update on the Fall 2026 Project Grant competition
Message from the Vice-President, Research Programs
July 8, 2026
Dear colleagues,
With the Fall 2026 Project Grant competition now underway, I would like to share several updates about some targeted changes we’re making for this competition. These changes aim to strengthen peer review by ensuring peer review committee mandates are clear and growing the pool of quality reviewers.
At the same time, CIHR continues to engage the research community on broader challenges facing the Project Grant competition, and what potential mitigation measures might look like. No decisions have been made about these changes. Any future measures or changes will be co-developed with the community.
Keeping peer review aligned with evolving science
CIHR regularly reviews peer review committee mandates to ensure they reflect current areas of science and clearly guide applicants in selecting the most appropriate committee for their application.
For this competition, Project Grant Chairs and Scientific Officers reviewed all mandates, drawing on their expertise and community feedback to address issues of clarity and overlap among panels. While no new committees were introduced, the mandates of 32 committees were updated to ensure clear distinctions between committees. These refinements will help ensure that applications are assessed by individuals with the most appropriate expertise.
As another step to strengthen the scientific review process, we are also expanding the role of Project Grant Chairs and Scientific Officers in reviewer recruitment and assignment. We expect that capitalizing on the scientific expertise of the Chair and Scientific Officer in shaping reviewer pools and matching applications to appropriate reviewers will further improve the review process. This change was a direct result of extensive consultations with the Chairs and SOs earlier this year.
For this competition, applicants will continue to submit a Canadian Common CV. We will communicate any decision to transition the Project Grant program to the Tri-agency CV at least one year in advance. In the meantime, we are expanding the use of the Tri-agency CV across funding opportunities, while gathering feedback to inform ongoing improvements to processes and support materials.
Successful applicants expected to serve on peer review committees
Over the past few years, the number of applications submitted to the Project Grant program has grown significantly, increasing by almost 60% since Spring 2023. This has required more than 3,600 additional reviews from over 500 additional reviewers. At the same time, a small but significant subset of funded researchers, approximately 430 individuals, or around 3%, have declined every invitation to participate in peer review over a period of three years.
Together, these factors are placing increasing demands on the peer review system, with participation unevenly distributed across the community.
Peer review is the cornerstone of CIHR’s funding model. It ensures that funding decisions support the most innovative ideas and highest-quality science through a process that is fair, rigorous, transparent and free from bias. Its success depends on the active participation of the community.
In addition to increases in application pressure, we have also witnessed a decrease in reviewer participation among grant recipients. These trends are not unique to CIHR; they are being experienced by many major research funding organizations around the world. Like our counterparts, we must take more direct action to ensure that our peer review system remains sustainable and effective over the long term.
As a first step, we are reinforcing a clear expectation: that those who benefit from peer review also contribute to it. Accordingly, the Conditions of Funding for Project Grants and other funding opportunities now specify that Nominated Principal Applicants who are successful in the competition are expected to participate in peer review when invited. While it may not be possible for a researcher to accept every peer review invitation, participation should be the norm whenever feasible. This reflects the principle of reciprocity that underpins the research enterprise.
We recognize the many demands on researchers’ time. At the same time, contributing to peer review is an important part of the broader professional responsibility that comes with receiving public research funding. We are engaging institutions to help ensure that peer review contributions are appropriately recognized as part of researchers’ professional responsibilities. We also hope that this expectation is considered as part of any and all workload assessments by university administrations.
Looking ahead
These updates are designed to support a program that remains rigorous, fair and responsive to a growing and evolving research community.
We will continue to share updates in the weeks and months ahead. We will post a summary of what we have heard through our “Ask Me Anything” sessions and other engagements to date. This will be followed by a position paper that summarizes the challenges facing the Project Grant program, as well as potential solutions.
Thank you for your continued engagement, your contributions to peer review and your commitment to advancing health research.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at IIRconsultations-consultationsRL@cihr-irsc.gc.ca.
Sincerely,
Adrian Mota
Vice-President, Research Programs, CIHR
- Date modified: